Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts

Monday, July 27, 2015

WHEN SAM CRIED UNCLE

Never eat with your fingers, my late mother said, but when I am really hungry all bets are off. Never start driving with a cold engine, my mechanic said, but when I have to get somewhere fast all bets are off. Never extrapolate a principle from an anecdote, my logic teacher said, but when I need to report the voice of the people as a journalist all bets are off. The first Joe Sixpack I talk to is nominated as the Oracle of Delphi.

This brings us to the story of how I came to appreciate the greatness of the first Reagan Tax Cut at 30,000 feet.

Airborne over the heartland, sipping watered-down Diet Coke and munching on stale peanuts, having snickered my way through the pap in the airline “magazine” and made three abortive stabs at writing a column on the barf bag, I was left with no other choice: it was time to stop ignoring my seat neighbor. He was a nice guy about forty-five, with a thriving business, and the rare bird who would admit out loud to being a Republican.

The subject got around to my career and the evolution of my political consciousness. I talked about getting behind Reagan back in 1976, when I was just eighteen, talking him up to skeptics for four years, and then the exhilarating ride to victory in 1980. I described the legislative battles that began after that, pushing for the 1981 and 1986 tax cuts, and what a huge sea change was accomplished by getting the top tax rate down from seventy percent to as low as twenty-eight before it began inching its way back up to its current 39.6.

 “Wait a minute,” he says, clearing his throat apologetically. “Are you trying to tell me they used to take seventy cents of tax off a dollar of earnings?”

OMG! It hit me like a sudden airplane lavatory flush, like a food service cart behind the knees, like a spasm of turbulence, like the credit card bill after the vacation. This guy who is forty-five now was just ten in 1980. He cannot even conceive of a world where you make a hundred dollars, 70 for Uncle Sam, 30 for you. Richard Daley getting the dead guys to vote in Chicago is not an image he can register. Tip O’Neill smoking his huge cigar poolside in Florida and cutting deals with labor leaders is not in his database.

This is a source of great pride for the GOP. Its accomplishments in the Reagan Era are what define the perimeter of today’s political spectrum. A politician who suggested a return to a seventy-percent rate could not get one percent of the vote even if he was running against Michael Vick for dog-catcher.

But I would argue the key to all of it, the Caitlyn Jenner moment when there was no turning back, came in the first Reagan tax cut, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Lowering the top rate from seventy to fifty provided the moral pivot. By rejecting the notion that the government can ever own more of your human output than you do, it revived the principle of the autonomy of the individual citizen. People can no longer be brainwashed into believing the ruling class knows better than we do how to run our lives.

All this happened in twenty-one days of astonishing leadership. The newly elected President Reagan had the Congress running scared. His popularity was immense and Democrats challenged him at their peril. A tide in the affairs of men had turned against them, and there were slings and arrows preventing them from stealing outrageous fortunes. With Reagan lifting the country’s spirits after the Carter malaise, and promising that his tax cut would restore the sovereignty of the individual without cutting the Treasury’s bottom line, the Democrats were stymied.

Twenty one days. The bill was introduced in the House on July 23, 1981. There were some wrangles and modifications; at one point the President had to go on TV and appeal to the citizenry. Popular opinion stood overwhelmingly with the President; on August 3rd and 4th, the two Houses of Congress passed the bill. By August 13, a scant three weeks after the bill began its odyssey, it was signed by a casual Ronald Reagan on his ranch in the hills of California. It was High Noon for Republicans, film noir for Democrats.


Via: American Spectator


Continue Reading....

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

[VIDEO] McFarland on Kerry’s Iran Inspections Claim: ‘It’s A Lie’

KT McFarland offered a blunt appraisal Monday of Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim that the United States had never sought “anytime, anywhere” inspections of Iran’s suspected nuclear sites.
“It’s a lie,” McFarland, a former State Department official for Ronald Reagan, said. “The reason anytime, anyplace inspections are crucial is because Iran in the past has cheated, so you really need ironclad inspections.”
“You think he was lying?” Fox News host Bill Hemmer asked.
“I think he wants this deal so badly he’s willing to stretch the truth around this,” McFarland responded.
Several of Kerry’s close confidants during the Iran negotiations, including Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, are on record earlier in the year assuring reporters that the United States would insist on “anytime, anywhere” inspections as part of any deal.
McFarland said the inspections process that the United States ultimately agreed to gives Iran the ability to stall inspectors for almost a month before they can visit a suspicious site.
“When the president said that we have 24-hour access to key nuclear installations, no you don’t—you have a 24-day period to request to look inside, and Iran has 24 days to say yes you can or no you can’t,” McFarland said.
Observers have expressed grave concern about the complicated bureaucratic mechanism that the United States will have to fight through at the United Nations to gain approval for an IAEA inspection.
By the time inspectors reach a suspected site, they may find only “elaborate cleanup efforts” like those that have been found at Iran’s Parchin military complex during past inspections.

How Reagan’s Five Little Words Helped Change a Nation

On July 17, 1980, 35 years ago, when he accepted the Republican presidential nomination, Ronald Reagan—the great communicator—outlined what he intended to do as president with five little words—family, work, neighborhood, peace, and freedom.
Family.
Reagan was always outspoken about pro-life issues such as the need to protect the unborn child. In 1984, for example, he published “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” becoming the first president to write a book while in office. In his acceptance address, he emphasized that “work and family are at the center of our lives, the foundation of our dignity as a free people.”
Work.
In his acceptance, Reagan argued that across-the-board tax cuts would jump-start the American economy—mired in stagflation as a result of Jimmy Carter’s failed policies. He stressed the dignity of work and said that the ability to support yourself was essential to a free people and a free nation.
“Reaganomics” proved to be the right medicine for our ailing economy—unemployment dropped dramatically, inflation subsided, and 17 million new jobs were added.
Neighborhood.
Reagan quoted Thomas Jefferson more than any other founder citing his firm commitment to liberty and limited government. In the face of an ever expanding federal government, candidate Reagan called for a renewal of “our compact of freedom.”
Echoing Alexis de Tocqueville and his praise of America’s voluntary associations, Reagan urged the people to restore “the American spirit of voluntary service, of cooperation, of private and community initiative.”
He promised that as president “everything that can be run more effectively by state and local government we shall turn over to state and local government, along with the funding sources to pay for it.” He would later call it “a New Federalism.”
Peace.
Reagan believed deeply in the concept of peace through strength—a phrase first used by President Dwight D. Eisenhower—and as president he championed a sophisticated, multi-faceted foreign policy that led, shortly after he left office, to the collapse of communism in Eastern and Central Europe and the dissolution of what he once called “an evil empire,” the Soviet Union.
In his 1980 address, he declared that “it is the responsibility of the President of the United States, in working for peace, to insure that the safety of our people cannot successfully be threatened by a hostile foreign power.”
As president, he strengthened the military, supported anti-communist forces around the world, and most critical of all introduced the Strategic Defense Initiative that convinced the Soviets they could not win the arms race.
Freedom.
In his acceptance remarks, Reagan promised to limit the overreach of the federal government into the lives of Americans. “We must have the clarity of vision,” he said, “to see the difference between what is essential and what is merely desirable; and then the courage to bring our government back under control.”
Through his historic tax cuts and pruning of non-essential services, President Reagan was able to free up the economy and enable Americans at all economic levels to spend their money as they and not the government wished.
At the same time, he initiated a Reagan Doctrine in foreign policy predicated on a simple solution to ending the Cold War: “We win and they lose.” By the end of the decade, and after Reagan had gone to Berlin and challenged the Soviet leadership, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” the wall was no more and all of Europe knew true peace for the first time in over 40 years.
As a candidate and as a president, Ronald Reagan cautioned against depending on one political leader or one political party. “My view of government,” he said, “places trust … in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs—in the people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in [our] elected leaders.”
Reagan saw himself as part of that relationship, committed to the first principles that had formed America and that keep her and all of us free. From beginning to end, he was a great communicator who understood the importance of great ideas and communicated them as no other president has in modern times.

Friday, July 17, 2015

Leave the Department of Education Behind


What has happened in the public schools since Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education? (AP File Photo)

Two weeks before the 1980 presidential election, the Associated Press published a story explaining that the two major-party candidates were "poles apart on education issues."

Carter, the story reminded readers, was the Founding Father of the federal Department of Education.

"The fate of the Department of Education, the $14-billion federal agency elevated to Cabinet status less than six months ago, may hang in the balance on Election Day," said the story.

"Republican Ronald Reagan," it said, "hopes to dismantle the agency, which was created following a promise that Jimmy Carter made to the National Education Association in seeking and winning the union's support four years ago."

The story ended with a direct quote from Reagan.

"I think that this Department of Education is hoping to make come true the dream of the National Education Association, which for many years has been that we should have a federal school system, a nationalized school system," said Reagan.

The Washington Post published a similar story in September 1980.

"And only Reagan speaks and writes about ending the public school 'monopoly,' a theme that fits in with his broad philosophical belief that the private sector can do most jobs better than the government," said the Post.



Thursday, July 16, 2015

[VIDEO] Obama Taunts GOP on Iran Deal by Comparing Himself to Reagan

President Obama has two routes for getting the Iran nuclear deal approved by Congress. The more difficult path involves attempting to woo Republicans, though they've already vowed to kill the deal. Or Obama could just shore up support among Democrats so when he vetoes the GOP's "resolution of disapproval" Congress won't have the votes to override him. Supposedly the White House has not settled on which path it will pursue, but Obama's decision to invoke the name of the GOP's favorite human in explaining his rationale for the deal suggests he isn't all that concerned about angering them further. He said in an interview with the New York Times' Thomas Friedman:
You know, I have a lot of differences with Ronald Reagan, but where I completely admire him was his recognition that if you were able to verify an agreements that you would negotiate with the evil empire that was hellbent on our destruction and was a far greater existential threat to us than Iran will ever be [then it would be worth doing]. I had a lot of disagreements with Richard Nixon, but he understood there was the prospect, the possibility, that China could take a different path. You test these things, and as long as we are preserving our security capacity — as long as we are not giving away our ability to respond forcefully, militarily, where necessary to protect our friends and our allies — that is a risk we have to take. It is a practical, common-sense position. It’s not naïve; it’s a recognition that if we can in fact resolve some of these differences, without resort to force, that will be a lot better for us and the people of that region.
Obama said he doubts they'll get many Republicans onboard, since "there’s a certain party line that has to be toed, within their primaries and among many sitting members of Congress." But he said that's "not across the board" and called out one candidate by name. "It’ll be interesting to see what somebody like a Rand Paul has to say about this," Obama said. Apparently the interview took place before Paul had registered his opposition with a series of GIFs.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

[FLASHBACK] Q&A With Judge Robert Bork: Moral Life of Nation Could be Decided by One Judge


Judge Robert Bork with President Ronald Reagan (Wikimedia Commons)[Editor's Note: In this interview with CNSNews.com in 2009, Judge Robert Bork warned that just "one judge"--Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy--effectively had the power to decide "the moral life of the nation.” Bork made the assertion after warning: "But we are going to see in the near future a terrible conflict between claimed rights of homosexuals and religious freedom. You are going to get Catholic hospitals that are going to be required as a matter of law to perform abortions.  You are going to get Catholic or other groups’ relief services that are going to be required to allow adoption of a child by homosexual couples.  We are going to have a real conflict that goes right to the heart of the society.”] 
(CNSNews.com) - “Now, it’s a funny situation in which the moral life of a nation is in effect decided by one judge, because you have four solid liberal votes, four solid originalist votes, and one vote you can’t predict too accurately in advance,” said Judge Robert Bork, reflecting on the balance of the U.S. Supreme Court, in an interview with CNSNews.com.
Bork was pondering what the outcome might be if the court at some future point were to answer the question of whether the government has the constitutional authority to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.
It is Justice Anthony Kennedy whom Bork believes holds the court’s deciding vote on such issues.
The judge spoke with CNSNews.com Editor in Chief Terry Jeffrey in a videotaped interview Jan. 8, 2009. Here is a transcript of the conversation.
Jeffrey: Welcome to “Online with Terry Jeffrey.” Our guest on this program is Judge Robert Bork. Judge Bork was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  He received both his bachelor’s degree and law degree from the University of Chicago. He was a law professor at the Yale University Law School. He served as solicitor general of the United States, and as acting attorney general of the United States.  He was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan.
He has written several books, including “The Tempting of America” and “Slouching Towards Gomorrah.” His latest book is “A Time to Speak.” It is published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, where I also happen to be a visiting fellow.
Judge Bork, thanks for agreeing to this interview and inviting us into your home.
Bork: Well, I am glad and I intend to enjoy it.


Jeffrey: Me too, sir. One of the essays published in the book is “Olympians on the March: The Court and the Culture Wars,” which you published back in 2004. I want to read you a passage that you wrote.

Bork: Oh my.

Jeffrey: I am going to hold you accountable. You said: “Only a draconian response to unconstitutional court decisions remains. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered the state’s legislature to amend its statutory law to permit homosexual marriage.  It is, or should seem, extraordinary that a court should order a legislature to amend and enact laws. The underlying decision is so self-evidently an act of judicial usurpation of the legislative function, and so wrong as a matter of constitutional interpretation that it might seem that any self-respecting legislature would simply refuse to comply, and if it did comply, that the governor would veto the bill. So accustomed have we become to judicial supremacy, however, that such a course sounds revolutionary. Yet there must be some means of standing up to a court that itself is behaving unconstitutionally in very serious matters.”
You have these issues—this is the issue of marriage—there’s not too many other issues I can think of that would go more fundamentally to what a culture and society is about.  It is being redefined by judges. What can the people do to respond to that kind of judicial usurpation?


Bork: Well, one thing they can do is amend the constitution, amend the state constitution. Of course, that doesn’t always work because the judges then--right now Jerry Brown in California is arguing, he’s the attorney general, he’s arguing that an amendment to the California constitution is unconstitutional.

Jeffrey: Right, this is Proposition 8.

Bork: Yeah. There’s no end to the gall of some of these folks. But amending the constitution is the clearest route.  Beyond that, the cures are longer term. They would involve replacing these judges with other judges.  If it’s an elective system, when they come up for reelection, vote them out and get new judges.  If it’s not, wait until they retire or die, and then get new judges.  But as long as we insist upon treating judges as the final word no matter what they say, we’re in trouble.

Via: CNS News
Continue Reading....

Ronald Reagan statue unveiled at state Capitol


The Ronald Reagan Centennial Capitol Foundation unveiled its statue of the former U.S. president and California governor in the Capitol’s basement rotunda Monday.
The event included former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of Energy John Herrington and other former state and federal Reagan staff members. Speakers had high praise for Reagan’s domestic and international legacy.
“To all of you here today that work in this city ... I urge you to come from time to time and look at a truly great leader,” Herrington said.
“Ronald Reagan is alive for all of us because his ideas last. Why do his ideas last? Because they work,” Shultz said.
Things stayed non-partisan, except for a brief mention of the dangers of “so-called progressives” by Herrington.
The foundation raised $350,000 in donations, among the biggest from former Univision Chairman Jerry Perenchio, media magnate Rupert Murdoch and former U.S. Ambassador to Britain Robert Tuttle.
The statue is a bronze likeness by sculptor Douglas Van Howd, a close friend of Reagan who served as White House artist during his administration. The foundation said the sculptor used tracings of Reagan’s shoes and “hundreds of pictures” to make the image.
Reagan will replace the young Christopher Columbus statue, which the Department of General Services says is now in storage but may soon move to the State Library at the discretion of State Librarian Greg Lucas.
The Reagan group commissioned two statues. The other will head to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library in Simi Valley.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article25187089.html#storylink=cpy
Via: Sacramento Bee

Continue Reading....

Monday, June 8, 2015

4 Liberal Myths About Ronald Reagan Debunked

Presidential historian H. W. Brands’ new biography of Ronald Reagan and his conclusion that modern American politics is best seen as “The Age of Reagan” has aroused liberals to circulate once again the hoariest myths about the man and his presidency, including the malicious charge that Reagan was deliberately indifferent to the lot of African-Americans and other minorities.
Liberal Myth No. 1: Reagan’s dangerously belligerent foreign policy had little to do with the disintegration of Soviet Communism. Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader most responsible for bringing the Cold War to a non-nuclear conclusion.
Reality: In the 1970s, as presidential scholar Kiron Skinner has written, Reagan formulated four key ideas about U.S.–Soviet relations and the Cold War. One, discussion of Soviet expansionism around the world had to precede any talk about arms control, not the reverse. Two, America was an “exceptional” nation obligated to match deeds with words in the promotion of freedom around the world. Three, because the Soviet Union was an “abnormal” nation with no popular base of support, it was prepared to foment global crises to maintain its control. Four, the Soviet Union’s inefficient economy and inferior technology “could not survive competition” with America. Once elected president, Reagan began carrying out a multifaceted victory strategy based on these ideas.
Reagan ordered an across-the-board buildup of the defense establishment, including land-based weapons, new ships, and new medium-range missiles. He launched a psychological offensive, declaring that the Soviets’ “evil empire” was headed for “the ash heap of history.” He made SDI (the Strategic Defensive Initiative) the cornerstone of the Reagan Doctrine and would not surrender it, even at the Reykjavik summit. He strongly supported anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, and Cambodia.
He carried his crusade for freedom into the disintegrating Soviet empire. Standing before Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in 1987, he directly challenged the Kremlin, saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” A little more than two years later, the wall came down and Communism in Eastern and Central Europe collapsed. Lech Walesa, Nobel laureate and founder of the Polish trade union Solidarity that confronted the Communist regime, said of President Reagan, “We in Poland … owe him our liberty.”
Democracy triumphed in the Cold War, Reagan wrote in his autobiography, because it was a battle of ideas—“between one system that gave preeminence to the state and another that gave preeminence to the individual and freedom.” The Cold War ended in triumph for the idea of freedom because of Ronald Reagan, not Mikhail Gorbachev, who as late as 1988 quoted the Communist Manifesto when asked his position on private property.
Liberal Myth No. 2: The ’80s were a decade of greed that benefited only the wealthy and overlooked the middle class.
Reality: Reagan inherited a dangerously weakened economy. High tax rates had severely limited jobs and investment and brought in less than expected government revenue. President Reagan reversed the process by cutting personal tax rates and government regulations, stabilizing the economy and encouraging entrepreneurs.

Saturday, June 6, 2015

[VIDEO] Ronald Reagan: We Have A Rendezvous With Destiny

Today, eleven years ago, Ronald Reagan died. His words are perhaps truer today than they were then.
Pray that everyone may hear them.
From beginning to 1:39:
Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 9.27.45 PM

Monday, June 1, 2015

The Presidential Skill Set

What you want in a leader won’t show up on the résumé.

Former Texas governor Rick Perry is gearing up for another presidential run and recently fired a shot across the bow of some of his competitors. In an interview with The Weekly Standard, Perry said that while he had “great respect” for senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul, they were not ready to be president:
I’ve had more than one individual say, “You know what, if you want to be the president of the United States, you ought to go back to your home state and be the governor and get that executive experience before you go lead this country.”
Perry’s record as governor of the Lone Star State is impressive. During his tenure, Texas was an economic dynamo while the rest of the country lagged behind. Republican voters will no doubt give him a careful look this time around.
Regardless, his suggestion is wrong. There is no correlation between presidential greatness and professional background.
Presidents are almost always governors, senators, or generals. We have seen good and bad versions of each. Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were both governors; the former had an intuitive feel for the demands of the office, while the latter was out of his depth from day one. Similarly, Lyndon Johnson was a former senator who was incredibly effective at getting Congress to do what he wanted, while John F. Kennedy’s domestic program mostly stalled. George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated a keen understanding of the political process, while Andrew Jackson and Zachary Taylor were capricious and imperial. Ulysses S. Grant was arguably the single geatest military commander this country has ever known, yet he was an inartful president.
Moreover, the country has had several polymath presidents who turned out to be disappointments. John Adams, James Monroe, Herbert Hoover, and George H. W. Bush had done a bit of everything by the time they became president. And yet none is in the top tier. Few men have been as qualified for the job as Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign because of Watergate. On the other hand, nobody has ever been elected president with as slender a résumé as Abraham Lincoln’s; nevertheless, he is widely regarded as America’s finest leader.
Political scientists have tried to explain such incongruity, but few explanations are satisfying. In the 1970s, James David Barber offered a psychological account of presidential greatness, but his approach was too reductionist and has been abandoned. More recently, Stephen Skowronek has argued that a president’s position in the broader political cycle is crucial. Yet like most analyses built on the concept of “political realignments,” this analysis falls prey to the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Presidential greatness is such a mystery because, while it depends on some predictable factors like the size of a congressional majority, a necessary ingredient is prudence. This ineffable quality enables a leader to make the best determination in light of the practical constraints he faces. Edmund Burke wrote:
Nothing universal can be ration­ally affirmed on any moral, or any political subject. Pure metaphysical abstraction does not belong to these matters. The lines of morality are not like the ideal lines of mathematics. They are broad and deep as well as long. They admit of exceptions; they demand modifications. These exceptions and modifications are not made by the process of logic, but by the rules of prudence. Prudence is not only the first in rank of the virtues political and moral, but she is the director, the regulator, the stand­ard of them all. ­Metaphysics cannot live without ­definition; but prudence is cautious how she defines. 
Prudence is the essential virtue of presidential greatness. It is the bridge that connects the unlimited expectations we have of the president to the slender formal powers we have granted him. 

4 Liberal Myths About Ronald Reagan Debunked

Presidential historian H. W. Brands’ new biography of Ronald Reagan and his conclusion that modern American politics is best seen as “The Age of Reagan” has aroused liberals to circulate once again the hoariest myths about the man and his presidency, including the malicious charge that Reagan was deliberately indifferent to the lot of African-Americans and other minorities.
Liberal Myth No. 1: Reagan’s dangerously belligerent foreign policy had little to do with the disintegration of Soviet Communism. Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader most responsible for bringing the Cold War to a non-nuclear conclusion.
Reality: In the 1970s, as presidential scholar Kiron Skinner has written, Reagan formulated four key ideas about U.S.–Soviet relations and the Cold War. One, discussion of Soviet expansionism around the world had to precede any talk about arms control, not the reverse. Two, America was an “exceptional” nation obligated to match deeds with words in the promotion of freedom around the world. Three, because the Soviet Union was an “abnormal” nation with no popular base of support, it was prepared to foment global crises to maintain its control. Four, the Soviet Union’s inefficient economy and inferior technology “could not survive competition” with America. Once elected president, Reagan began carrying out a multifaceted victory strategy based on these ideas.
Reagan ordered an across-the-board buildup of the defense establishment, including land-based weapons, new ships, and new medium-range missiles. He launched a psychological offensive, declaring that the Soviets’ “evil empire” was headed for “the ash heap of history.” He made SDI (the Strategic Defensive Initiative) the cornerstone of the Reagan Doctrine and would not surrender it, even at the Reykjavik summit. He strongly supported anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, and Cambodia.
He carried his crusade for freedom into the disintegrating Soviet empire. Standing before Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in 1987, he directly challenged the Kremlin, saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” A little more than two years later, the wall came down and Communism in Eastern and Central Europe collapsed. Lech Walesa, Nobel laureate and founder of the Polish trade union Solidarity that confronted the Communist regime, said of President Reagan, “We in Poland … owe him our liberty.”
Democracy triumphed in the Cold War, Reagan wrote in his autobiography, because it was a battle of ideas—“between one system that gave preeminence to the state and another that gave preeminence to the individual and freedom.” The Cold War ended in triumph for the idea of freedom because of Ronald Reagan, not Mikhail Gorbachev, who as late as 1988 quoted the Communist Manifesto when asked his position on private property.
Liberal Myth No. 2: The ’80s were a decade of greed that benefited only the wealthy and overlooked the middle class.
Reality: Reagan inherited a dangerously weakened economy. High tax rates had severely limited jobs and investment and brought in less than expected government revenue. President Reagan reversed the process by cutting personal tax rates and government regulations, stabilizing the economy and encouraging entrepreneurs.

Popular Posts